Opinion
January 21, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.).
The trial court properly denied defendant's eve-of-trial request for a new attorney, since the defendant's unsupported claim that his attorney's consultations with him were brief was insufficient to establish the good cause necessary to require the substitution of assigned counsel ( see, People v. Nunez, 186 A.D.2d 764). The court provided defendant with ample opportunity to state his complaints and sufficiently addressed defendant's concerns about his attorney's competence ( see, People v. Garcia, 250 A.D.2d 421, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 897).
The challenged remarks of the prosecutor on summation were responsive to defendant's summation ( see, People v. McCaskell, 217 A.D.2d 527, 528, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 848) and did not otherwise deprive him of a fair trial.
The court's denial of defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction was proper.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.